Debunking 3 common myths about data sovereignty

As data sovereignty rises up the agenda, myths risk clouding strategy. Chris Shaw, channel director, UK and Ireland at AvePoint, unpacks three common misconceptions and how organisations can take real control of their data

As AI accelerates and geopolitical currents complicate international technological collaboration, data sovereignty is an increasingly hot topic for organisations in the UK and across Europe.

Just this June, the European Commission unveiled a massive “tech sovereignty” package to “strengthen the EU’s capacity” in AI, cloud computing, infrastructure, and more; a sign of how serious the push for greater local control and influence has become.

This is a positive shift, but it’s important to think rationally about data sovereignty, and it’s crucial to avoid falling victim to common myths and misconceptions.

I’ll address 3 of the most common myths about data sovereignty and share how organisations in the UK and around Europe can tackle these challenges and take real control of their data.

Channel organisations are well-positioned to help end-customers take real control of their data, but to do this, it’s important to understand and be able to dispel common misconceptions about data sovereignty today

Myth #1: “I need a European vendor to host my data in Europe”

This is one of the most common misconceptions about data sovereignty that I regularly encounter, so let me be clear: you do not need a Europe- or UK-based storage or backup vendor to host your data in Europe.

Today, the global software ecosystem is truly global, which means that vendors headquartered in other regions are increasingly giving customers the option to store their data in a European jurisdiction that meets their operational needs.

A truly competitive global vendor will work with you to store your data locally, and to ensure that the data is protected and maintained in accordance with local laws like UK GDPR, the EU Data Act, and more.

Previously, non-European companies lacked the infrastructure to host data locally, but that is no longer true. Non-EU and UK companies are able to securely and easily lease space in EU datacentres.

Myth #2: “If my data is stored in Europe, it’s sovereign”

While physical location matters, European and UK enterprises do not achieve data sovereignty simply by keeping their data within local borders.

Local storage helps meet data residency requirements and can simplify access and data protection goals, but data sovereignty is a much more holistic prerogative. Geographical location is one aspect of data sovereignty and will help meet local data residency and data protection requirements, but it is far from the only aspect.

Data estates, whether they’re hosted in the UK, in the EU, or elsewhere, still need strong management, governance, and data protection measures to maintain regulatory compliance and prevent security incidents.

If you lack comprehensive control over who can access, manipulate, or move your data, its physical coordinates are irrelevant.

Data residency is merely a prerequisite; true sovereignty requires comprehensive governance.

Myth #3: “Post-Brexit, UK data sovereignty requirements are basically the same as the EU’s”

Although the UK GDPR and EU GDPR (the two pieces of legislation that regulate data sovereignty in these jurisdictions) remain closely aligned in many respects, post-Brexit sovereignty requirements should not be treated as interchangeable.

The UK and EU are now operating within separate political, regulatory, and strategic frameworks, and that divergence could become more significant over time.

In the EU, data sovereignty is increasingly tied to wider ambitions around digital autonomy, industrial policy, and reducing dependence on non-European technology ecosystems.

In the UK, the conversation is often shaped more by pragmatic regulatory flexibility, trade, and national competitiveness.

That means organisations operating across both markets cannot assume that one approach to governance, risk, jurisdiction, and vendor oversight will satisfy both equally.

The legal foundations may overlap, but the policy direction, enforcement priorities, and strategic goals behind them are no longer the same.

The bottom line: act on facts, not on sentiment

European and UK organisations have valid practical and symbolic reasons for taking increased control of their data. But as we take steps to gain greater control, it’s important to act on facts and data rather than sentiment and misconceptions.

Geography and data residency matter, but so do jurisdiction, governance, operational control, and the broader policy environment in which organisations operate.

The strongest strategies will successfully separate legitimate sovereignty requirements from assumptions, marketing claims, and political noise.

For channel partners navigating this space, the goal should be to help customers build a holistic data strategy that’s grounded in real control, resilience, and long-term flexibility.